Community > Posts By > madisonman

 
madisonman's photo
Thu 03/26/09 03:25 PM
In the movie Lars and the Real Girl, the main character imagines that a female blow-up doll is his fiancé. To humor Lars, his brother and sister-in-law go along with the charade. Over the course of the movie, more people are drawn into the circle, until eventually the whole town is treating Bianca the blow-up doll as one of its leading citizens.

This seems to pretty well describe the debate over the budget deficit, except it's not clear that many people realize it's a charade. The main story is that Lars' budget hawk counterparts are upset that the deficits projected for 2013 or 2019 are too large. They want President Obama to commit to spending cuts and/or tax increases in order to bring these deficits to levels they consider acceptable.

The unreality of this picture is striking because the budget hawks seem not to notice that we are in the middle of an economic meltdown.

People are losing their homes through foreclosures at the rate of more than 100,000 a month. The default rates on credit cards, car loans and other debt is at record levels. Most of our major banks are effectively insolvent.

Home and stock prices have plummeted, destroying most of the wealth of the baby boom cohort as they stand on the edge of retirement. The economy is shedding almost 700,000 jobs a month, with the unemployment rate rapidly approaching the highest level since the Great Depression.

In this context we are supposed to be up in arms over the deficit projections for 2013 or 2019? This is a bit like someone complaining about the lawn not being mowed at a time when the house is on fire, it's just not the first priority. And the media all seem to go along with the charade - yes, they are very concerned about the projected deficit for 2013, just as the characters in the movie expressed concern about the health of Bianca the blow-up doll.

It is especially annoying to hear the whining from this group of deficit hawks since their whining in prior years helped to drown out serious discussion of the dangers posed by an $8 trillion housing bubble. While some of us were yelling at the top of our lungs about the imminent disaster that would hit the economy when the housing bubble burst, the media chose to focus on these deficit hawks with their dire warnings about budget deficits 40 or 50 years in the future.

Because the media and political elites chose to pay more attention to the deficit hawks than those warning about the housing bubble, we now get to enjoy the current economic crisis. And, one result of the economic crisis is (drum roll, please) ........record deficits.

To put the point so simply that even a Washington Post editor can understand it: because the media highlighted the views of the people who were ranting about the deficit rather than the views of people who understood the economy, we both got a wrecked economy and larger deficits.

The moral to this story is that the economy must take priority, not only because the state of the economy is what most directly determines people's well-being, but also because the state of the economy will be the most important determinant of the deficit.

The experience of the 1990s provides an example of exactly this sort of story. In January of 1994 the Congressional Budget Office projected that the deficit in 1999 would be $204 billion or 2.4 percent of GDP. This projection incorporated the impact of President Clinton's tax increase and spending cuts.

It turned out that there was a surplus of $125 billion in 1999, or 1.4 percent of GDP. This shift from deficit to surplus of 3.8 percentage points of GDP (equivalent to $540 billion in 2009) was not caused by further spending cuts or tax increases, it was caused by the strong economic growth of the period.

There is no guarantee that President Obama's policies will be successful in restoring strong growth, but they are clearly a step in the right direction. If we have strong growth, then our deficits will be manageable. If the economy remains weak, the deficit will remain a serious burden no matter how much we raise taxes or cut spending.

Someone has to tell the deficit hawks that their blow-up doll is not real. The issue is the economy, not the deficit.



© 2009 Huffington Post
Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). He is the author of The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer ( www.conservativenannystate.org) and the more recently published Plunder and Blunder: The Rise and Fall of The Bubble Economy. He also has a blog, "Beat the Press," where he discusses the media's coverage of economic issues. You can find it at the American Prospect's web site.


http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/03/26-11

madisonman's photo
Thu 03/26/09 03:03 PM

Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld- the lot of em- should all be hung up by the short hairs. Wait. That's torture. Let's just prosecute them and throw em in jail to live out the rest of their evil, worthless lives.
3 squares and a cot is generous and a lot more than they deserve.
well water boarding int realt torture so we could at least do that to them. :wink:

madisonman's photo
Thu 03/26/09 04:37 AM
Im so glad Obama stopped the nazification of america

madisonman's photo
Wed 03/25/09 06:20 PM
Honorable discharge of course. but that isnt the topic of this thread eh? its war crimes and the Nuremburg laws.

madisonman's photo
Wed 03/25/09 05:47 PM
President Obama needs to tell Attorney General Eric Holder to indict **** Cheney, right now, for war crimes.

Just look at the statute, Title 18 of the U.S. Criminal Code, Section 2441. It says that someone is guilty of a war crime if he or she commits a "grave breach of common Article 3" of the Geneva Conventions. And then it defines what a grave breach would be.

One such breach is torture, or the conspiracy to commit torture, which Cheney was clearly in on, as when he repeatedly defended waterboarding and talked about the need to go to the "dark side" Here's the language from the statute: "The act of a person who commits, or conspires to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering . . . upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind."

Another grave breach is "cruel or inhuman treatment," or the conspiracy to inflict such treatment. Again, Cheney was supervising such treatment in the White House, which would qualify as committing this crime. One time, it got so ghoulish that Attorney General John Ashcroft asked the other principals, "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."

Here's the language on "cruel or inhuman treatment": "The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering . . . including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control."

An additional breach is "mutilation or maiming." Since some detainees say they no longer have the complete functioning of arms or limbs, Cheney may be on the hook here, too. "The act of a person who intentionally injures, or conspires or attempts to injure, or injures whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons . . . by disfiguring the person or persons by any mutilation thereof or by permanently disabling any member, limb or organ of his body, without any legitimate medical or dental purpose."

"Intentionally causing serious bodily harm" is yet another grave breach. The statute defines this as: "The act of a person who intentionally causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, serious bodily injury to one or more persons, including lawful combatants, in violation of the law of war."

For each of these offenses, Cheney could receive life in prison, according to the statute.

That is where he belongs.

And it's time for Obama to stop *****footing around. He should indict, arrest, and prosecute Cheney.

"There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes," said Major General Antonio Taguba, USA (Ret.), in the preface to the Physicians for Human Rights report, "Broken Laws, Broken Lives". "The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

That question is now firmly on Obama's desk.

And if he continues to dodge it, he'll make a sick joke of the pious claim that we are a nation of laws, not men.

© 2009 The Progressive
Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive magazine.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/03/25-8

madisonman's photo
Tue 03/24/09 04:59 PM

Dork Cheney is Palpatine! So who is his Sith? spock

Cheney did a lot of illegal stuff (Haliburton) while he was in office and the GOP knows eventually it is going to catch up to him. While he was in office he had protection but now? Protection? He would be better off committing suicide and getting buried in secrecy so no one defiles his grave! It is only a matter of time when his rock gets turned over revealing the little crab hiding under neath it. Better watch out though because we all know he can't tell the difference between a friend of his and a duck!
laugh

madisonman's photo
Tue 03/24/09 04:27 PM
Congressional Republicans are telling **** Cheney to go back to his undisclosed location and leave them alone to rebuild the Republican Party without his input. Displeased with the former vice-president's recent media appearances, Republican lawmakers say he's hurting GOP efforts to reinvent itself after back-to-back electoral drubbings. The veep, who showed a penchant for secrecy during eight years in the White House, has popped up in media interviews to defend the Bush-Cheney record while suggesting that the country is not as safe under President Obama.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/news/20920

madisonman's photo
Mon 03/23/09 02:27 PM
Dow up nearly 500 on bank plan, rise in home sales- AP
Wall Street got the news it wanted on the economy's biggest problems -- banks and housing -- and celebrated by hurtling the Dow Jones industrials up nearly 500 points. Investors added rocket fuel Monday to a two-week-old advance, cheering the government's plan to help banks remove bad assets from their books and also welcoming a report showing a surprising increase in home sales.

drinker

madisonman's photo
Sun 03/22/09 04:02 PM
Side note, under Bush and the republicans, the government was big business................The republicans can never ever be trusted to tend to the peoples business.

madisonman's photo
Sun 03/22/09 02:09 PM

I know because I am terminally ill. I only have a certain amount of time left. I'd been saving all my life for a retirement that I won't need now.
I am so sorry also. Every day we walk this earth is to be treasured. Peace to you

madisonman's photo
Sun 03/22/09 01:51 PM
laugh


One only need to look at health care to see how bad a "freemarket" system has failed. We have the most expensive in the world yet rank near the bottom in terms of care. This country has allways had a mixed economy being capitalism has been regulated. We get in trouble when we charge the Fox's with tending the hen house as is evident by our current mess.


A regulated capitalism is not a capitalism at all. The whole point of why capitalism works, is that it is NOT REGULATED. Therefore, dumb people never get the money to waste.

To say that we had a capitalism that was regulated, is akin to saying that we have a child who is dead.
IAG laugh I wont even waste my time responding to this propoganda. You fellows had your chance for darn near 8 years and you damn near destroyed the whole planets economic system. Your solution more of the same? Good lord.

madisonman's photo
Sun 03/22/09 01:02 PM

All awesome posts, guys! How many times one can say ditto?

Here is something to add.

Doesn't it shock you how a lot of people are openly considering socialism these days? It used to be, (when Americans were somewhat more educated), that just mentioning socialism would cast a dark shadow on a person's ability to think logically.

Not because of socialism being a casted out idea, but because folks around you, having examined the socialist way in detail, have already come to the conclusion that one has to be ignorant of economics, to suppose that socialism can work.

These days, 4 people out of 5 are flirting with socialist ideas, and think that there is possibly something good that can come out of it. Is it not an indication that 4 out of 5 Americans now are not only not educated at all, they also do not have any critical thinking facilities.

Mises said that when the government undertakes by itself and pursues any task, it will invariably end up achieving exactly the opposite of the stated goal. If that is true then the department of education has pretty much accomplished it mission.
One only need to look at health care to see how bad a "freemarket" system has failed. We have the most expensive in the world yet rank near the bottom in terms of care. This country has allways had a mixed economy being capitalism has been regulated. We get in trouble when we charge the Fox's with tending the hen house as is evident by our current mess.

madisonman's photo
Sun 03/22/09 04:59 AM
March 21, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- The country is coming to conclusions that a year ago would be unthinkable. The current turmoil on Wall Street has convinced many Americans of something that has been said for years, but nobody really believed…entirely. That something was that lawyers and bankers cannot be trusted. The American people know by now that the advice is largely true, they can’t be trusted. Neither can politicians, stockbrokers and financial advisors. In fact, people are starting to realize the entire concept of capitalism can’t be trusted, not just for the average Joe, but for the entire country. Capitalism is not your friend; it never has been and will not be in the future. It will continue to feed the rich, in fact, more than just feed them, but it won’t help the average wage earner realize the American dream. That’s never what it was designed to do. It was put in place to insure that the rich got richer and that the not so rich would stay where they were and to be grateful they could feed their families.

This isn’t the first time that capitalism has failed. Every time it fails we use a form of temporary socialism to shore up the economy. When things start to return to normal, we give everything back to the capitalists. Why is that? Could it be that we have no choice?

Ever notice how people equate capitalism with belief in God and country? They defend capitalism as if any other kind of government will lead them into slavery. The truth is that capitalism is an express ticket into slavery. Still, for every worker that recites a story of abject horror, there is an example of how the shining example of individualism embodied in the dogma of “free enterprise” has lifted a poor person out of his or her misery into nirvana. Pulling yourself up from your bootstraps is another way of contributing to the myth that capitalism works for everyone. I would like to see the ratio of millionaires that inherited their wealth vs. those that made their own money. If it were true that people surmounted the difficulties of amassing wealth and that many had truly “made it on their own”, the empirical evidence would be touted from every capitalist media outlet to every citizen in the country, just to prove that “free enterprise” works, yet it just isn’t there.

We Americans watch as our leaders try every trick in the book to grease the skids of our languishing economic system. We watch as AIG and other parasitic financial institutions grasp at every stray dollar they can con out of the people in a vain attempt to shore up their crumbling empires. The Federal government has allocated another trillion dollars to shore up the secondary real estate market and attempt to get Americans to buy real estate again. Meanwhile, Richard Cook, an economist that worked on NASA’s budget proposes that instead of trying to ignite the fires of consumerism with money given directly to large capitalist financial markets, the government could better stimulate the economy by giving citizens $1,800.00 vouchers monthly to pay their utilities and mortgages and to buy food and other essentials. This he claims would stimulate the economy by putting hard cash in the hands of consumers. Wouldn’t this be the end result the government is trying to achieve? Yet nobody takes this proposal seriously, at least not the government or those failing institutions with their sweaty palms out. Seems as they believe that money would be better off left in the hands of those that have brought us to where we are today, to hoard it or to siphon it off in undeserved salaries or bonuses, anywhere but on the streets so that consumers could spend it.

If one were to look back and take an honest look at the economy, they would see that writers such as me and many others on both sides of the political spectrum were trying to capture the nation’s attention five years ago when the Middle Class was losing almost two thousand dollars a year. This was happening year after year. Not only was the median income slipping, but benefits were being cut, full time jobs were being outsourced overseas and many Americans found themselves working two part time jobs just to keep up their mortgage payments. Some writers and economists were using phrases such as “class warfare” to shock some sense into the political parties and the employers. Still the government did nothing to alleviate the suffering of the hourly wage earner. It wasn’t until the situation started to affect the affluent did the government start to heed the warning signs.

Now it is a common sight to see a politician on a news clip railing at the excesses of Wall Street. Where were these politicos when the average wage earner was being cut from the American dream? Were they still listening to the vermin that call themselves lobbyists telling them that all was well? We can see now that we had more than enough time to understand that everything wasn’t at all well. The people that believed in the fairy-tale of “trickle-down” economics should have been concerned when nothing at all was reaching the lower end of the economic spectrum. They should have started becoming concerned when more businesses were going under, when people were cutting back on their medications so that they could put food on their families table.

This should really erase any doubts about the myth of unfettered capitalism. Unregulated, gluttonous capitalism didn’t just “appear” when Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers started to cry “Uncle!”. The signs were there long before that. This time when we finally realize that anything too big to fail should be nationalized, when we understand that government regulation should be mandatory when dealing with predators, let’s not take a giant step backwards and slide back into “free enterprise capitalism”, giving the reigns of financial power back to the people that only care about themselves.

timgatto@hotmail.com - http://Liberalpro.blogspot.com
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20077.htm

madisonman's photo
Sat 03/21/09 04:34 PM








well, if Obama's deficit is 4 times as much as Bush's... how many times was Bush's deficit more than Clinton's?


Same stupid liberal/conservative "defend my side" response. So much for f*cking change. QUIT DEFENDING YOUR GUY'S SCREWUPS WITH THE OTHER SIDE'S MISTAKES!

Right now, the CBO estimates that Obama's budget will result in a $2.3T ADDITIONAL deficit (as in, over the $7T Obama's people are saying)over the next decade. That's half the debt added by Bush in 8 years! And that's only if the economy gets better - any worse and it'll balloon even more. That also is only the budget deficit - other bailouts and socialist ventures are not included.

Bush being a d*uchebag does not allow Obama free reign. yeah, Bush overspent (the war was not the bulk of it either) and he should be held accountable for that. But him overspending does not give anyone, especially a candidate that ran on change, the right to do the exact same thing.

It costs money to fix the Bush mess, it wasnt going to clean itself up. Years of tax cuts for the rich and fat contracts for the Iraq war profiteers came at the expense of our infrastructure. How can anyone keep a straight face and blame Obama for this mess? While gas prices were shooting through the roof and a war being waged bleeding our treasury dry we didnt hear a peep from these hoaxters. When a republican congress passed the patriot act we didnt hear a word from them about "no one had the time to read it" Now these same hoaxsters who created so much suffering are bemoaning that no one read the stimulas act. Thats it for me for now off to a union meeting, working hard to keep good paying taxable paychecks right here in america.


Actually, yes, it would clean itself up. That's how capitalism works. we should have let the banks, AIG, GM, Chrysler and all the the whining p*ssies fall. Others buy the assets and new companies form. The Democrats would never let that happen, however, because of all the little girlie union people that want mommy union to get everything for them instead of actually (here's a thought!) working for it. If GM fell, the UAW would go right along with it because the new owners would not give the asinine deals the current members get.
Meanwhile back in reality, families starve, riots ensue. crime increases, anarchy, civil unrest, martial law, possibly a communist revelution...........hmmm doesnt realy sound all THAT bad


did you just pull every bad occurrence you could think of out of your ass or something? You exaggerate too much. how is a communist revolution any different economically from what we are currently experiencing?

And truthfully, I don't think we suffered at all as a whole. We've learned nothing and will continue to learn nothing if we rely on everyone else to fix our own problems.
Do you realy think the great american people would sit back and watch their kids starve to death or go without healthcare? Something would snap eventualy and it wouldnt be pretty.


not necessarily, but I do not see the next Bolshevik revolution either. do you really think that giving them all this help temporarily will ever teach them responsibility?
No the powers that be would never allow a bolshevik revelution they would just declare martial law, suspend the constitution and create an even more brutal oppresive police state. bye bye american pie.


the american pie went out with the trash decades ago.
Maybe in your world but not in minelaugh

madisonman's photo
Sat 03/21/09 03:10 PM
Edited by madisonman on Sat 03/21/09 03:15 PM






well, if Obama's deficit is 4 times as much as Bush's... how many times was Bush's deficit more than Clinton's?


Same stupid liberal/conservative "defend my side" response. So much for f*cking change. QUIT DEFENDING YOUR GUY'S SCREWUPS WITH THE OTHER SIDE'S MISTAKES!

Right now, the CBO estimates that Obama's budget will result in a $2.3T ADDITIONAL deficit (as in, over the $7T Obama's people are saying)over the next decade. That's half the debt added by Bush in 8 years! And that's only if the economy gets better - any worse and it'll balloon even more. That also is only the budget deficit - other bailouts and socialist ventures are not included.

Bush being a d*uchebag does not allow Obama free reign. yeah, Bush overspent (the war was not the bulk of it either) and he should be held accountable for that. But him overspending does not give anyone, especially a candidate that ran on change, the right to do the exact same thing.

It costs money to fix the Bush mess, it wasnt going to clean itself up. Years of tax cuts for the rich and fat contracts for the Iraq war profiteers came at the expense of our infrastructure. How can anyone keep a straight face and blame Obama for this mess? While gas prices were shooting through the roof and a war being waged bleeding our treasury dry we didnt hear a peep from these hoaxters. When a republican congress passed the patriot act we didnt hear a word from them about "no one had the time to read it" Now these same hoaxsters who created so much suffering are bemoaning that no one read the stimulas act. Thats it for me for now off to a union meeting, working hard to keep good paying taxable paychecks right here in america.


Actually, yes, it would clean itself up. That's how capitalism works. we should have let the banks, AIG, GM, Chrysler and all the the whining p*ssies fall. Others buy the assets and new companies form. The Democrats would never let that happen, however, because of all the little girlie union people that want mommy union to get everything for them instead of actually (here's a thought!) working for it. If GM fell, the UAW would go right along with it because the new owners would not give the asinine deals the current members get.
Meanwhile back in reality, families starve, riots ensue. crime increases, anarchy, civil unrest, martial law, possibly a communist revelution...........hmmm doesnt realy sound all THAT bad


did you just pull every bad occurrence you could think of out of your ass or something? You exaggerate too much. how is a communist revolution any different economically from what we are currently experiencing?

And truthfully, I don't think we suffered at all as a whole. We've learned nothing and will continue to learn nothing if we rely on everyone else to fix our own problems.
Do you realy think the great american people would sit back and watch their kids starve to death or go without healthcare? Something would snap eventualy and it wouldnt be pretty.


not necessarily, but I do not see the next Bolshevik revolution either. do you really think that giving them all this help temporarily will ever teach them responsibility?
No the powers that be would never allow a bolshevik revelution they would just declare martial law, suspend the constitution and create an even more brutal oppresive police state. bye bye american pie.

madisonman's photo
Sat 03/21/09 02:29 PM




well, if Obama's deficit is 4 times as much as Bush's... how many times was Bush's deficit more than Clinton's?


Same stupid liberal/conservative "defend my side" response. So much for f*cking change. QUIT DEFENDING YOUR GUY'S SCREWUPS WITH THE OTHER SIDE'S MISTAKES!

Right now, the CBO estimates that Obama's budget will result in a $2.3T ADDITIONAL deficit (as in, over the $7T Obama's people are saying)over the next decade. That's half the debt added by Bush in 8 years! And that's only if the economy gets better - any worse and it'll balloon even more. That also is only the budget deficit - other bailouts and socialist ventures are not included.

Bush being a d*uchebag does not allow Obama free reign. yeah, Bush overspent (the war was not the bulk of it either) and he should be held accountable for that. But him overspending does not give anyone, especially a candidate that ran on change, the right to do the exact same thing.

It costs money to fix the Bush mess, it wasnt going to clean itself up. Years of tax cuts for the rich and fat contracts for the Iraq war profiteers came at the expense of our infrastructure. How can anyone keep a straight face and blame Obama for this mess? While gas prices were shooting through the roof and a war being waged bleeding our treasury dry we didnt hear a peep from these hoaxters. When a republican congress passed the patriot act we didnt hear a word from them about "no one had the time to read it" Now these same hoaxsters who created so much suffering are bemoaning that no one read the stimulas act. Thats it for me for now off to a union meeting, working hard to keep good paying taxable paychecks right here in america.


Actually, yes, it would clean itself up. That's how capitalism works. we should have let the banks, AIG, GM, Chrysler and all the the whining p*ssies fall. Others buy the assets and new companies form. The Democrats would never let that happen, however, because of all the little girlie union people that want mommy union to get everything for them instead of actually (here's a thought!) working for it. If GM fell, the UAW would go right along with it because the new owners would not give the asinine deals the current members get.
Meanwhile back in reality, families starve, riots ensue. crime increases, anarchy, civil unrest, martial law, possibly a communist revelution...........hmmm doesnt realy sound all THAT bad


did you just pull every bad occurrence you could think of out of your ass or something? You exaggerate too much. how is a communist revolution any different economically from what we are currently experiencing?

And truthfully, I don't think we suffered at all as a whole. We've learned nothing and will continue to learn nothing if we rely on everyone else to fix our own problems.
Do you realy think the great american people would sit back and watch their kids starve to death or go without healthcare? Something would snap eventualy and it wouldnt be pretty.

madisonman's photo
Sat 03/21/09 02:18 PM


well, if Obama's deficit is 4 times as much as Bush's... how many times was Bush's deficit more than Clinton's?


Same stupid liberal/conservative "defend my side" response. So much for f*cking change. QUIT DEFENDING YOUR GUY'S SCREWUPS WITH THE OTHER SIDE'S MISTAKES!

Right now, the CBO estimates that Obama's budget will result in a $2.3T ADDITIONAL deficit (as in, over the $7T Obama's people are saying)over the next decade. That's half the debt added by Bush in 8 years! And that's only if the economy gets better - any worse and it'll balloon even more. That also is only the budget deficit - other bailouts and socialist ventures are not included.

Bush being a d*uchebag does not allow Obama free reign. yeah, Bush overspent (the war was not the bulk of it either) and he should be held accountable for that. But him overspending does not give anyone, especially a candidate that ran on change, the right to do the exact same thing.

It costs money to fix the Bush mess, it wasnt going to clean itself up. Years of tax cuts for the rich and fat contracts for the Iraq war profiteers came at the expense of our infrastructure. How can anyone keep a straight face and blame Obama for this mess? While gas prices were shooting through the roof and a war being waged bleeding our treasury dry we didnt hear a peep from these hoaxters. When a republican congress passed the patriot act we didnt hear a word from them about "no one had the time to read it" Now these same hoaxsters who created so much suffering are bemoaning that no one read the stimulas act. Thats it for me for now off to a union meeting, working hard to keep good paying taxable paychecks right here in america.


Actually, yes, it would clean itself up. That's how capitalism works. we should have let the banks, AIG, GM, Chrysler and all the the whining p*ssies fall. Others buy the assets and new companies form. The Democrats would never let that happen, however, because of all the little girlie union people that want mommy union to get everything for them instead of actually (here's a thought!) working for it. If GM fell, the UAW would go right along with it because the new owners would not give the asinine deals the current members get.
Meanwhile back in reality, families starve, riots ensue. crime increases, anarchy, civil unrest, martial law, possibly a communist revelution...........hmmm doesnt realy sound all THAT bad

madisonman's photo
Sat 03/21/09 03:29 AM
It costs money to fix the Bush mess, it wasnt going to clean itself up. Years of tax cuts for the rich and fat contracts for the Iraq war profiteers came at the expense of our infrastructure. How can anyone keep a straight face and blame Obama for this mess? While gas prices were shooting through the roof and a war being waged bleeding our treasury dry we didnt hear a peep from these hoaxters. When a republican congress passed the patriot act we didnt hear a word from them about "no one had the time to read it" Now these same hoaxsters who created so much suffering are bemoaning that no one read the stimulas act. Thats it for me for now off to a union meeting, working hard to keep good paying taxable paychecks right here in america.

madisonman's photo
Sat 03/21/09 03:11 AM

Yawwnnnnnnnnnnnn Bush is gone!Get over it!Nobody cares about WMD,why we invaded Iraq,or Sadaam hussien but you.Give it a rest.
War criminals should never be forgoten

madisonman's photo
Sat 03/21/09 01:42 AM
Six years ago, the United States of America began the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Since then, 4,259 American soldiers have been killed and tens of thousands more have been wounded. There is no accurate accounting of Iraqi dead and wounded, because as we were told, we do not do body counts. Because the Bush administration left its Iraq expenditures off the budget, and because of the tremendous amount of war-profiteering, graft and theft that has been involved, we do not know exactly how much we have spent.

For the record, 2,192 days later, this is how we got here:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
- **** Cheney, Vice President
Speech to VFW National Convention
8/26/2002

"There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest."
- Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From the Press
9/6/2002

"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
- Condoleezza Rice, US National Security Adviser
CNN Late Edition
9/8/2002

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
- George W. Bush, President
Speech to the UN General Assembly
9/12/2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
- George W. Bush, President
Radio Address
10/5/2002

"The Iraqi regime ... possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
- George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio, Speech
10/7/2002

"And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons."
- George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio, Speech
10/7/2002

"After 11 years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon."
- George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio, Speech
10/7/2002

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."
- George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio, Speech
10/7/2002

"Iraq, despite UN sanctions, maintains an aggressive program to rebuild the infrastructure for its nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile programs. In each instance, Iraq's procurement agents are actively working to obtain both weapons-specific and dual-use materials and technologies critical to their rebuilding and expansion efforts, using front companies and whatever illicit means are at hand."
- John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
Speech to the Hudson Institute
11/1/2002

"Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists ... The war on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of mass destruction."
- **** Cheney, Vice President
Denver, Address to the Air National Guard
12/1/2002

"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world."
- Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
12/2/2002

"The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it."
- Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From the Press
12/4/2002

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
- Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
1/9/2003

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
- George W. Bush, President
State of the Union Address
1/28/2003

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
- George W. Bush, President
State of the Union Address
1/28/2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
- Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Remarks to the UN Security Council
2/5/2003

"There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. If biological weapons seem too terrible to contemplate, chemical weapons are equally chilling."
- Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Address to the UN Security Council
2/5/2003

"In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world - and we will not allow it."
- George W. Bush, President
Speech to the American Enterprise Institute
2/26/2003

"If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us ... But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct."
- Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Interview With Radio France International
2/28/2003

"So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not."
- Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Remarks to the UN Security Council
3/7/2003

"Let's talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We know that based on intelligence, that has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
- **** Cheney, Vice President
"Meet the Press"
3/16/2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
- George W. Bush, President
Address to the Nation
3/17/2003

"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly ... all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes."
- Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
3/21/2003

"One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites."
- Victoria Clark, Pentagon Spokeswoman
Press Briefing
3/22/2003

"I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction."
- Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board Member
Washington Post, p. A27
3/23/2003

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
- Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
ABC Interview
3/30/2003

"We still need to find and secure Iraq's weapons of mass destruction facilities and secure Iraq's borders so we can prevent the flow of weapons of mass destruction materials and senior regime officials out of the country."
- Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Press Conference
4/9/2003

"You bet we're concerned about it. And one of the reasons it's important is because the nexus between terrorist states with weapons of mass destruction ... and terrorist groups - networks - is a critical link. And the thought that ... some of those materials could leave the country and in the hands of terrorist networks would be a very unhappy prospect. So it is important to us to see that that doesn't happen."
- Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Press Conference
4/9/2003

"I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found."
- Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
4/10/2003

"But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found."
- Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
4/10/2003

"Were not going to find anything until we find people who tell us where the things are. And we have that very high on our priority list, to find the people who know. And when we do, then well learn precisely where things were and what was done."
- Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
"Meet the Press"
4/13/2003

"We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them."
- George W. Bush, President
NBC Interview
4/24/2003

"There are people who in large measure have information that we need ... so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country."
- Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Press Briefing
4/25/2003

"We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so."
- George W. Bush, President
Remarks to Reporters
5/3/2003

"I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now."
- Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Remarks to Reporters
5/4/2003

"We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country."
- Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Fox News Interview
5/4/2003

"I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein - because he had a weapons program."
- George W. Bush, President
Remarks to Reporters
5/6/2003

"U.S. officials never expected that 'we were going to open garages and find' weapons of mass destruction."
- Condoleezza Rice, US National Security Adviser
Reuters Interview
5/12/2003

"We said all along that we will never get to the bottom of the Iraqi WMD program simply by going and searching specific sites, that you'd have to be able to get people who know about the programs to talk to you."
- Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense
Interview With Australian Broadcasting
5/13/2003

"It's going to take time to find them, but we know he had them. And whether he destroyed them, moved them or hid them, we're going to find out the truth. One thing is for certain: Saddam Hussein no longer threatens America with weapons of mass destruction."
- George W. Bush, President
Speech at a Weapons Factory in Ohio
5/25/2003

"They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer."
- Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations
5/27/2003

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
- Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense
Vanity Fair Interview
5/28/2003

"The President is indeed satisfied with the intelligence that he received. And I think that's borne out by the fact that, just as Secretary Powell described at the United Nations, we have found the bio trucks that can be used only for the purpose of producing biological weapons. That's proof-perfect that the intelligence in that regard was right on target."
- Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
5/29/2003

"We have teams of people that are out looking. They've investigated a number of sites. And within the last week or two, they have in fact captured and have in custody two of the mobile trailers that Secretary Powell talked about at the United Nations as being biological weapons laboratories."
- Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Infinity Radio Interview
5/30/2003

"But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."
- George W. Bush, President
Interview With TVP Poland
5/30/2003

"You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons ... They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two ... And we'll find more weapons as time goes on."
- George W. Bush, President
Press Briefing
5/30/2003

"This wasn't material I was making up, it came from the intelligence community."
- Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Press Briefing
6/2/2003

"We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents. This is the man who spent decades hiding tools of mass murder. He knew the inspectors were looking for them. You know better than me he's got a big country in which to hide them. We're on the look. We'll reveal the truth."
- George W. Bush, President
Camp Sayliya, Qatar
6/5/2003

"I would put before you Exhibit A, the mobile biological labs that we have found. People are saying, 'Well, are they truly mobile biological labs?' Yes, they are. And the DCI, George Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence, stands behind that assessment."
- Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Fox News Interview
6/8/2003

"No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were, where they were stored."
- Condoleezza Rice, US National Security Adviser
"Meet the Press"
6/8/2003

"What the president has said is because it's been the long-standing view of numerous people, not only in this country, not only in this administration, but around the world, including at the United Nations, who came to those conclusions ... And the president is not going to engage in the rewriting of history that others may be trying to engage in."
- Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From the Press
6/9/2003

"Iraq had a weapons program ... Intelligence throughout the decade showed they had a weapons program. I am absolutely convinced with time we'll find out they did have a weapons program."
- George W. Bush, President
Comment to Reporters
6/9/2003

"The biological weapons labs that we believe strongly are biological weapons labs, we didn't find any biological weapons with those labs. But should that give us any comfort? Not at all. Those were labs that could produce biological weapons whenever Saddam Hussein might have wanted to have a biological weapons inventory."
- Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Associated Press Interview
6/12/2003

"My personal view is that their intelligence has been, I'm sure, imperfect, but good. In other words, I think the intelligence was correct in general, and that you always will find out precisely what it was once you get on the ground and have a chance to talk to people and explore it, and I think that will happen."
- Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Press Briefing
6/18/2003

"I have reason, every reason, to believe that the intelligence that we were operating off was correct and that we will, in fact, find weapons or evidence of weapons, programs, that are conclusive. But that's just a matter of time ... It's now less than eight weeks since the end of major combat in Iraq and I believe that patience will prove to be a virtue."
- Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Pentagon Media Briefing
6/24/2003

MS. BLOCK: There were no toxins found in those trailers.

SECRETARY POWELL: Which could mean one of several things: one, they hadn't been used yet to develop toxins; or, secondly, they had been sterilized so thoroughly that there is no residual left. It may well be that they hadn't been used yet.
- Colin Powell, Secretary of State
"All Things Considered" Interview
6/27/2003

"That was the concern we had with Saddam Hussein. Not only did he have weapons - and we'll uncover not only his weapons but all of his weapons programs - he never lost the intent to have these kinds of weapons."
- Colin Powell, Secretary of State
"All Things Considered" Interview
6/27/2003

"I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are."
- Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
7/9/2003
_______



About author
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know and The Greatest Sedition Is Silence. His newest book, House of Ill Repute: Reflections on War, Lies, and America's Ravaged Reputation, will be available this winter from PoliPointPress.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/20851

1 2 4 6 7 8 9 24 25